BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

39 results for “capital gains”+ Section 237clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai512Delhi431Bangalore144Chandigarh133Chennai120Jaipur110Karnataka110Ahmedabad85Kolkata79Hyderabad48Pune39Cochin29Raipur25Indore20Lucknow18Calcutta17Visakhapatnam16Guwahati16Surat16Amritsar13Nagpur13Rajkot8Telangana7SC6Varanasi5Patna5Kerala4Jodhpur4Allahabad4Cuttack3Ranchi3Jabalpur3Rajasthan2Dehradun2Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income27Section 143(3)24Section 80I21Section 11521Section 14721Section 14817Section 23714Disallowance10Section 10(38)8Deduction

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1453/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

capital gain on adhoc basis. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: Search material in case of Mr. Dilip Kotecha Date of search – search – 9/8/2011 Search Asstt Date Particulars Qty. Rate Amount materia Order l Page Page No. No. 20 29.11.10 Dellip Kotecha 25,000 154.43 38,60,850 20 1.12.10 Dellip Kotecha

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

8
Depreciation8
Capital Gains8

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1887/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Section 2(14)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Capital gains of Rs.50,05,237/-. The income was assessed at Rs.99,48,880/- and proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the I T Act for concealment of income were initiated. The factual position arising is that the assessee had purchased land at Bhukum on 05/04/2006. The said transaction of purchase was not recorded in the Books of Accounts. Subsequently

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

237, Chandan Bunglow, Income Tax, Pune-1 Azad Road, 80th Lane, Jaysingpur – 416101 Maharashtra PAN : ALKPM9403C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 17.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed

ARCHANA RAJENDRA MALU,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1867/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. PAN : AACHR7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the two different assessees directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income

RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU,HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1868/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. PAN : AACHR7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the two different assessees directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 927/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

gained by delaying the filing of appeal, the delay of 237 days is condoned in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC

SURESH JUGRAJ MUTHA,,DHULE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.05/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Dr. V.L. JainFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 28Section 54

capital gains. At the end of the assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed the said interest income and held that the loan was not utilised as per the law. Further, the claim of deduction u/s.54 was also denied holding that the sale of the lands constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade. In the appeal before First Appellate authority

NITIN BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 638/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 143(3)

gains on account of Wakad land and Ravet land and on account of interest expenditure. Further, in the case of Nitin B. Agarwal, the Assessing Officer did 9. not make any addition on account of expenditure/investments. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in SB Account in bank account which is the second reason for CASS

SURENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 637/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 143(3)

gains on account of Wakad land and Ravet land and on account of interest expenditure. Further, in the case of Nitin B. Agarwal, the Assessing Officer did 9. not make any addition on account of expenditure/investments. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in SB Account in bank account which is the second reason for CASS

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1891/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

capital gains relating to the income of enhanced compensation of land. Assessee owns a land and the Government acquired the same @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. Assessee disputed the compensation and filed a case before the District Court. Vide the order dated 30-06-1999, the compensation was increased to Rs.340/- per unit. AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1893/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

capital gains relating to the income of enhanced compensation of land. Assessee owns a land and the Government acquired the same @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. Assessee disputed the compensation and filed a case before the District Court. Vide the order dated 30-06-1999, the compensation was increased to Rs.340/- per unit. AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1892/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

capital gains relating to the income of enhanced compensation of land. Assessee owns a land and the Government acquired the same @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. Assessee disputed the compensation and filed a case before the District Court. Vide the order dated 30-06-1999, the compensation was increased to Rs.340/- per unit. AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

capital gain as casual income could not be said to be based on change of opinion. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. Relying on the following decisions, he submitted that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are in accordance with law: 1. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

237 days of dissolution. Further, the assessee firm has\ncarried out the afore-mentioned transaction(s) after closure of business activities.\nIn such a scenario, provisions of section 189 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 needs to\nbe invoked and liability of tax, penalty, etc. needs to be borne by the partner(s) of\nthe at the time of dissolution

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

237 days of dissolution. Further, the assessee firm has\ncarried out the afore-mentioned transaction(s) after closure of business activities.\nIn such a scenario, provisions of section 189 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 needs to\nbe invoked and liability of tax, penalty, etc. needs to be borne by the partner(s) of\nthe at the time of dissolution

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 28Section 56(2)(viii)

237 Taxman 0116 (P&H). It noted another judgment of three Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikram Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, (1997) 224 ITR 551(SC) following Dr. Shamlal Narula vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2400/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

capital asset.' But here the question is, in the earlier years though investments are shown as investments in the books of account for Income-tax purposes, the same was shown as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the assessee-bank changed its method of accounting during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under present appeal. In the earlier years

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2641/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

capital asset.' But here the question is, in the earlier years though investments are shown as investments in the books of account for Income-tax purposes, the same was shown as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the assessee-bank changed its method of accounting during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under present appeal. In the earlier years

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2428/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

capital asset.' But here the question is, in the earlier years though investments are shown as investments in the books of account for Income-tax purposes, the same was shown as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the assessee-bank changed its method of accounting during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under present appeal. In the earlier years

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

ITA 1115/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Atul PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 115JSection 237

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When